Reeve-Gray v Larsen Limited and Larsen Limited v Wallglaze (Fixing) Limited: [2025] JRC 108

The case revolves around a building dispute concerning works carried out on a property owned by Natasha and Rocco Reeve-Gray in St Saviour, Jersey. The Reeve-Grays engaged Larsen Limited as the main contractor for extensive development works on their property, which included the installation of new external windows and doors. Larsen Limited subcontracted Wallglaze (Fixing) Limited for the glazing works.

The Reeve-Grays acquired the property in December 2007 and planned to significantly develop it. Larsen Limited was retained as the main contractor in 2009, and the works commenced without a formal Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract, operating instead on a cost-plus arrangement. Wallglaze was recommended by Larsen and subsequently appointed to carry out the glazing works. Significant deterioration of the glazing components was noticed around October 2018, leading to the Reeve-Grays obtaining an expert report from Mr. Appleyard, which concluded that the glazing components were failing and needed replacement.

The Reeve-Grays claimed damages from Larsen Limited for the defective glazing works. Larsen Limited claimed that Wallglaze was a nominated subcontractor and thus responsible for the defects. The court had to determine whether Wallglaze was a nominated subcontractor or a domestic subcontractor.

The court found that Wallglaze was a domestic subcontractor, not a nominated subcontractor. The contractual terms between Larsen and Wallglaze, including the letter of 6 June 2011, indicated that Wallglaze was working through Larsen and was not directly liable to the Reeve-Grays. The court noted that the use of the term “domestic subcontractor” in the letter of 6 June 2011 and the requirement for a collateral warranty supported the conclusion that Wallglaze was not a nominated subcontractor. Larsen’s claim against Wallglaze was inconsistent with their defence against the Reeve-Grays, as Larsen had previously admitted liability for Wallglaze’s work.

The court granted summary judgment on liability in favour of the Reeve-Grays against Larsen Limited. The issues of causation and quantum were left to be determined at a later trial. The court also indicated that Larsen could pursue a claim for summary judgment against Wallglaze, subject to further proceedings.

Key Takeaways:

1. Main contractors are generally liable for the performance of their subcontractors.
2. Clear contractual terms are crucial in determining the responsibilities and liabilities of parties involved in construction projects.
3. Contractors must ensure the quality and fitness for purpose of the works carried out by their subcontractors.
4. Liability can be apportioned based on the contractual relationships and the extent of each party’s negligence.
5. Proper documentation and adherence to contractual terms are essential in resolving disputes and determining liability.